Ogg --> best kbps

Nofx Guy · 3rd April 2002, 04:52

well i searched this in the forums and couldnt find a reasonable answer..

i was just wondering what would be a good kbps to encode music into ogg, which would give better of equivalent quality to that of a 192kbps mp3?

thnx...

tjb2004 · 3rd April 2002, 04:56

Just use mp3.
If not:
GOOGLE

Rocker · 3rd April 2002, 05:00

try around 130kbps....

130kbps sounds perfect to me in ogg format
unlike 128kbps MP3

tiger84 · 3rd April 2002, 06:27

What is this ogg you speak of, I have never heard of such a thing.

Oh, bye the way, you know 128 kbps sounds pretty true to life, I mean you can't really tell a difference unless you are either listening to classical music (even then the highest bitrate sucks) or really paying attention to the sound.

Anacific · 3rd April 2002, 07:23

For me -q 5 sounds good enough

Vica · 3rd April 2002, 07:35

Quote:

Originally posted by tiger84
What is this ogg you speak of, I have never heard of such a thing.

Ogg Vorbis, basicly the future for compressed audio as the next step up after mp3s.

YtseJam · 3rd April 2002, 20:11

I always use 192kbps and if I remember correctly, q=6.

apollos · 3rd April 2002, 20:15

320 Kps is sweet! Bigger file but quality is what i look for! I also notice that there is a difference between Whenever Wherever 128kps one and 320Kps version. The 320 doesn't distort and the quieter little bits of the song are sharper! I am one of those people who sits down and vigourously compares quality of music!
I even notice differnces between 128 and 192!

Yes, i am pretty sad!

Anacific · 3rd April 2002, 22:17

Why bother? Stick with WAVs

ujay · 4th April 2002, 01:44

I think I shall be sticking with Mp3 for a while yet.

There is hardly any difference in file size, I can't hear any difference in quality, but above all it's over 3 times quicker than Ogg Vorbis.

UJ

GoldenSphynx · 4th April 2002, 02:22

i like 128 mp3's to share with my friends but if im burnin a cd...definately i go with wavs

apollos · 4th April 2002, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GoldenSphinx86
i like 128 mp3's to share with my friends but if im burnin a cd...definately i go with wavs

Why the wavs??

ujay · 4th April 2002, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by andrewsanders
Why the wavs??

Because if you don't you get

Original CD to Mp3 - lossy
Mp3 to wav - more loss
wav to copy CD.

I use wav all the time, most of the stuff I burn is from old LPs and tapes and needs to be in wav format before they can be cleaning up.

UJ

ujay · 4th April 2002, 17:52

You are right of course Sawg, it shouldn't get any worse

What sort of compression can you get with said Monkey's Audio ?

At the momment the wav files I make only exist until they are burnt to CD, and then archived on the HDD as Mp3.

What are the prospects of Ogg Vorbis speeding up a bit, I find it very slow. Or is that a consequence of the VBR.

UJ

ujay · 4th April 2002, 18:07

Thanks Sawg

UJ

waroxhardcore · 8th May 2002, 21:09

also if you're (anybody) interested in lossless compression check out the flac format, I like it better than monkey's audio because it decodes faster

also, it provides playback on many OSs and source code to allow playback even on unsupported OSs

check it out at http://flac.sourceforge.net/

prodangle · 9th May 2002, 07:54

I can definately notice the differance between 128 and 192kbps mp3 in most songs. I think it is very obvious if you have a half decent speakers/amp combo, but maybe not so obvious if you are using PC speakers or a crappy sound card.
I'd love to use 130 ogg and save a bit of space, but it's not very handy for my mp3 player. I'd have to convert everything from ogg->mp3 before transferring it, which would be a bit of a pain.

KiwiFreak · 9th May 2002, 08:01

OK...A question about this ogg thing.

I've run out of space on my hard drive and over half of it is full with MP3s, is it worth converting the MP3s to OGGs?
Will there be loss going from MP3 to OGG?
And most importantly, does Winamp support OGG?

prodangle · 9th May 2002, 08:15

Before Sawg jumps in, converting from one lossy format to another will always result in more loss. You'd be beter off leaving the old files as they are.
The ogg plugin for WA has been around for a while now, and 2.8 comes with ogg support.

KiwiFreak · 9th May 2002, 08:25

I'm happy with that answer, it would have meant to much work converting 1700 MP3s

kljs · 9th May 2002, 10:53

Tell me,it this good or bad?

Rocker · 9th May 2002, 12:39

bit of a waste of hard disk actually

you won't notice the difference between .5 and 1.0 even on a high end hifi system

even .4 isn't bad

james · 9th May 2002, 16:42

Plus, the lower the bitrate the less often the player has to read from the disk, thus the more you can get done in the meanwhile (such as ripping CDs

)

3rd April 2002, 04:52	#1
Nofx Guy Major Dude Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: under a rock Posts: 998	Ogg --> best kbps well i searched this in the forums and couldnt find a reasonable answer.. i was just wondering what would be a good kbps to encode music into ogg, which would give better of equivalent quality to that of a 192kbps mp3? thnx... www.audioflo.ath.cx All music, All the Time

3rd April 2002, 04:56	#2
tjb2004 Major Dude Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Rocky River, Ohio. Posts: 1,881	Just use mp3. If not: GOOGLE Hype? tjb2004.deviantart.com

3rd April 2002, 06:27	#4
tiger84 Major Dude Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: 101010 Posts: 750	I have a question What is this ogg you speak of, I have never heard of such a thing. Oh, bye the way, you know 128 kbps sounds pretty true to life, I mean you can't really tell a difference unless you are either listening to classical music (even then the highest bitrate sucks) or really paying attention to the sound. If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up. Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.

3rd April 2002, 07:23	#5
Anacific Major Dude Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,744	For me -q 5 sounds good enough "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." - William Blake WSPA \| WWF \| RSPCA \| AAPA \| Green Peace - Know and help... The Rainforest Site \| The Animal Rescue Site - Click and help...

3rd April 2002, 22:17	#9
Anacific Major Dude Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,744	Why bother? Stick with WAVs "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence." - William Blake WSPA \| WWF \| RSPCA \| AAPA \| Green Peace - Know and help... The Rainforest Site \| The Animal Rescue Site - Click and help...

3rd April 2002, 05:00	#3
Rocker Hiding in plain sight (mod) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 9,910	try around 130kbps.... 130kbps sounds perfect to me in ogg format unlike 128kbps MP3

3rd April 2002, 20:11	#7
YtseJam Forum King Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Israel Posts: 2,398	I always use 192kbps and if I remember correctly, q=6.

3rd April 2002, 20:15	#8
apollos Forum King Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canterbury & Plymouth Posts: 4,176	320 Kps is sweet! Bigger file but quality is what i look for! I also notice that there is a difference between Whenever Wherever 128kps one and 320Kps version. The 320 doesn't distort and the quieter little bits of the song are sharper! I am one of those people who sits down and vigourously compares quality of music! I even notice differnces between 128 and 192! Yes, i am pretty sad!

4th April 2002, 01:44	#10
ujay Forum King Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: London Posts: 6,072	I think I shall be sticking with Mp3 for a while yet. There is hardly any difference in file size, I can't hear any difference in quality, but above all it's over 3 times quicker than Ogg Vorbis. UJ

4th April 2002, 02:22	#11
GoldenSphynx Forum King Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 2,738	i like 128 mp3's to share with my friends but if im burnin a cd...definately i go with wavs

4th April 2002, 17:52	#14
ujay Forum King Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: London Posts: 6,072	You are right of course Sawg, it shouldn't get any worse What sort of compression can you get with said Monkey's Audio ? At the momment the wav files I make only exist until they are burnt to CD, and then archived on the HDD as Mp3. What are the prospects of Ogg Vorbis speeding up a bit, I find it very slow. Or is that a consequence of the VBR. UJ

4th April 2002, 18:07	#15
ujay Forum King Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: London Posts: 6,072	Thanks Sawg UJ

8th May 2002, 21:09	#16
waroxhardcore Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 4	also if you're (anybody) interested in lossless compression check out the flac format, I like it better than monkey's audio because it decodes faster also, it provides playback on many OSs and source code to allow playback even on unsupported OSs check it out at http://flac.sourceforge.net/

9th May 2002, 07:54	#17
prodangle Major Dude Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Scotland Posts: 718	I can definately notice the differance between 128 and 192kbps mp3 in most songs. I think it is very obvious if you have a half decent speakers/amp combo, but maybe not so obvious if you are using PC speakers or a crappy sound card. I'd love to use 130 ogg and save a bit of space, but it's not very handy for my mp3 player. I'd have to convert everything from ogg->mp3 before transferring it, which would be a bit of a pain.

9th May 2002, 08:01	#18
KiwiFreak Major Dude Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 505	OK...A question about this ogg thing. I've run out of space on my hard drive and over half of it is full with MP3s, is it worth converting the MP3s to OGGs? Will there be loss going from MP3 to OGG? And most importantly, does Winamp support OGG? If you think you can or think you can't...you're right.

9th May 2002, 08:15	#19
prodangle Major Dude Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Scotland Posts: 718	Before Sawg jumps in, converting from one lossy format to another will always result in more loss. You'd be beter off leaving the old files as they are. The ogg plugin for WA has been around for a while now, and 2.8 comes with ogg support.

9th May 2002, 08:25	#20
KiwiFreak Major Dude Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 505	I'm happy with that answer, it would have meant to much work converting 1700 MP3s If you think you can or think you can't...you're right.

9th May 2002, 10:53	#21
kljs Major Dude Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kulim,Kedah,Malaysia Posts: 645	Tell me,it this good or bad? I am just a normal person sitting on the bench and reading newspaper and having a cup of coffee. Why can't people see that?

9th May 2002, 12:39	#22
Rocker Hiding in plain sight (mod) Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 9,910	bit of a waste of hard disk actually you won't notice the difference between .5 and 1.0 even on a high end hifi system even .4 isn't bad

9th May 2002, 16:42	#23
james Forum PFY (Major Dude) Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: WR3 or NG7 Posts: 6.2+3i Posts: 1,698	Plus, the lower the bitrate the less often the player has to read from the disk, thus the more you can get done in the meanwhile (such as ripping CDs ) He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts: for support, not illumination.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode